Bringing high tech business to the North East

Putting in place the infrastructure for new kinds of business requires vision and leadership.

Everyone knows the phrase "coals to Newcastle". This is a tale of "software to Cambridge". From Newcastle. When I started my business thirty years ago it seemed far-fetched. There were less than 10 technology businesses in the whole of the North East. Now there are over 300, from software to computer games to cloud computing. Only London has a higher rate of high tech start ups. So we are doing our bit for "rebalancing" the economy.

The obvious questions are why and how? The simple answer is that while some industries depend on capital to get going, for technology companies it is people.  Software and computer games are by their very nature "weightless" products that can be sold in every corner of the world over the internet without any significant transport costs – the exporter’s dream. If you can sit a talented programmer or a creative designer in front of a computer, they can be producing saleable products that are instantly exportable.

The greatest asset for any region is its universities. The greatest problem in the North East is raising the aspirations of our own population to go to them. In a global competition for talent, you need places "where talent wants to live". This means that you need to have a buzzing music and cultural scene – Newcastle has been voted one of the world top party cities - good affordable housing and easy ways to get to work. Tyneside and the rest of the region has a justifiable reputation as a great place to be and this has been fostered over the last decade by a combination of strategic, long-sighted public investment in creative and cultural infrastructure like the Sage Gateshead, and the establishment of organisations like Generator who support the music industry and make events happen.

University involvement and partnership with business has grown by encouraging graduate internships and establishing "hatcheries" nurturing embryonic businesses. Publicly-funded initiatives like Sunderland Software City and Digital City on Teesside have been able to provide guidance, mentoring, premises, and networking for new business. Organisations like North East Access to Finance help fund the growing numbers of start-ups and high growth companies.

I chaired the Regional Development Agency until it was closed this year. Its founding idea – that public and private sectors need to support each other - is right. Here are three things that would make the biggest difference in the next ten years. Firstly, there needs to be more productive and innovative partnerships between the private sector, the universities and the public sector. Each offers different elements to the mix. Entrepreneurial ideas and drive, a trained and educated workforce coupled with innovative research and development in the right "connected" locations are the fundamental building blocks for this industry. Secondly businesses like this need finance. Often UK banks are reluctant to lend to this sector so we need to create small grants that allow clever people to test ideas and then more substantial equity investments as businesses mature and develop. Finally we need vision, leadership and role models. People who see what the North East's economy could look like and have the ambition, drive and determination to make it happen. The region has changed much since the dark days of the Likely Lads, what we need for the future is tomorrow’s Bob and Terry having Masters degrees in software engineering and creating world-leading software.

Paul Callaghan is Chairman of Leighton, the North East-based technology, software, media and communications group that he founded.

The sun sets behind the Tyne Bridge. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.